In a personal injury Trial, Anderson J. heard evidence from two experts regarding causation and the treatment of ankle injuries. Her Ladyship was “mindful of Rule 8.16(1)”, which states that no more than one expert is permitted to give opinion evidence on one subject unless the Court otherwise permits, and noted that there are “strong policy reasons” for limiting the number of experts. However, Anderson J. held that hearing from both sets of witnesses was appropriate, as the Court would benefit from receiving the evidence of multiple experts with “varying specialities,” and while there was some duplication of evidence, it was not abusive or excessive.